- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #101
Fair enough.What, I'm open to dialog. Just so long as Democrats confess to their crimes and are punished.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Fair enough.What, I'm open to dialog. Just so long as Democrats confess to their crimes and are punished.
Hitchens would have eviscerated Kirk. I would have loved to watch a fantasy debate between Chris and William F. Buckley.Not in the sense that people like say - Christopher Hitchens did.
For those on the left who insist on having a 'conversation' about hot-button issues--remember that's all Charlie Kirk wanted to do.
"Let's have a conversation."
Charlie Kirk wanted to 'have a conversation,' and he got shot dead for it. Is it a conversation you want, or something else? Say, maybe, total capitulation to your own views of the world?
Think about that for a minute. Please.
Examples can be cherrypicked. Just like so called facts can.Please try and pay attention. I wrote: "Example"
Too late.I implore those on the right not to let that happen to them.
What, I'm open to dialog. Just so long as Democrats confess to their crimes and are punished.
I wouldn't expect someone disabused from our political universe to understand anything about what happened here. In the United States, we don't kill people for having a different opinion.Bullshit. Total bullshit.
Charlie Kirk was advocating against democracy and equal rights.
He died by the political violence he espoused. Killed by those he radicalized.
You people choose to live in denial. It's weird and mentally ill.He died by the political violence he espoused. Killed by those he radicalized.
Hardly.Too late.
Afraid to take the initiative?You first.
But Kirk wasn't DJT.Really?
And what world do you live in?
We have djt openly lying. Openly. He's then cheered for playing his game.
I wouldn't expect someone disabused from our political universe to understand anything about what happened here. In the United States, we don't kill people for having a different opinion.
If you're happy he's dead, you're the exact reason that some of these posters in the thread want to go after the left's throat.
So, what violence did he encourage?
And what about the left in the 60s?You most certainly do kill people for having a different opinion. Think of the murders of abortion workers in the 70s and 80s and 90s and 2000s.
No, he murdered them for voting against a pro-illegal immigration bill.Well, just a couple of months ago a crazed right wing antiabortionist murdered to lawmakers in Minnesota who were fighting for women’s rights to reproductive care.
Kirk didn't debate people. Not in the sense that people like say - Christopher Hitchens did. He baited people and played to the audience. Not the audience at the vents so much as to the audience he knew was "out there" on Youtube.
Example?
27:50 questions
Charlie is asked a question and right out of the gate he starts acting like a Cable tv host, attacking the questioner. Not sure why he didn't just answer with an explanation. He mentions "Joe Biden's America" as if a group in England is up on all the petty battles in American politics. He's playing to the camera. He knows his people will see it and the Biden reference is pure Maga bait.
and of course, even in the comments section people hear what they want and spin narratives that ignore some things.
But as I've long said: Charlie Kirk was no true debater. He was a provocateur and a bully boy of the right, and Maga Loudmouth
Oh, that explains why Kirk is dead.The USA has a long and storied history of assassinating President, and other political leaders, simply for having a different opinion.
And according to his letter and testimony, because Walz planned it.No he murdered them for voting against pro illegal immigration bill.
Pretzel logic.Kirk is what happened when a leftist let anger consume them.
I implore those on the right not to let that happen to them.